Well, I suppose one of several silver linings of the current arguments about whether the UK should transfer ownership of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius (the legal case is weak, the strategic case is absurd) and the USA should buy Greenland from Denmark, is that those of us who are a bit off the pace with our geography have had a chance to remind ourselves where these places are, and why they matter.
The Chagos Islands have been what are rather grandly called a British Indian Ocean Territory. The UK government, claiming that it is required to do so under international law (debatable), is to hand the islands to Mauritius – which is hundreds of miles away to the west of Chagos – and will pay Mauritius (a tax haven, by the way) for the ability to have control of said islands for a leasehold period of several decades. That means the UK can no longer decide if other countries – such as China – should be excluded, for example, from putting listening posts in the vicinity. The US military uses the Diego Garcia military base to operate long-haul flights, such as of the B2 stealth bomber and B52 bomber varieties, often to vital strategic effect.
In 2025, when the Starmer government was pushing this arrangement to pass over the islands to Mauritius – and pay Mauritius billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money for the purpose (which is itself a disgrace) – the newly elected Trump administration appeared to be content with the deal, although some in the defence establishment appeared to be worried about the geo-strategic implications of opening a potential door to China in that part of the Indian Ocean. The Chagos transfer remains caught up in UK parliamentary wrangling, but I fear that it will go through – but maybe not if Trump’s comments in the past 24 hours have an impact.
Mr Trump, who is angry at the UK for things such as allowing the Chinese to build a massive new embassy in London (with enhanced spying capabilities, no doubt), and about the UK’s criticism of his Greenland purchase demand (the UK is on firmer ground, if not entirely) has hit at the UK for the Chagos situation. Arguably, Trump’s move gives Starmer, if he is wise enough (is he, ed?) an “off-ramp” excuse to axe the Chagos transfer and put it down as a bad idea. (That would be the smart course, in my view.) Maybe even a smarter course would be for Starmer to let the US buy a stake in the Chagos Islands with a promise to let the UK still use the base on a joint basis. That would deal with America’s concerns about long-haul base access in the Indian Ocean and countering Chinese mischief-making, and perhaps take a bit of sting out of the Greenland issue.
I haven’t space to go into the Greenland case, but suffice to say that I think a US invasion of land that is under Danish rule (Denmark is in NATO) is unlikely to happen and would be outrageous if it did. I think Trump will pull back and over time, some sort of arrangement will be reached once tempers cool. Greenland, given some icecap melting etc, is going to be easier for surface ships and submarines to navigate around, and that makes it an important place for the US/Canada/others to want to protect, given where it is on the map.
But where the Greenland case is relevant in the Chagos case is that the US has a lease of a military base there (signed in 1951 – there were several attempts by the US to buy the place). And Trump has said that leaseholds aren’t enough – the US must own it. The logic he uses is similar to the logic that critics of the Chagos transfer have used – leaseholds aren’t enough because you must have the ability to exclude. Exclusion is the key issue here.
Maybe, therefore, a way forward for Trump and other NATO powers is to insist that US/Western leases in Greenland must involve no such leases for China, Russia and others potentially hostile to NATO members, and that such leases should be reviewed, such as once every 10 years to account for changing geopolitics.
The ability to show a measure of maturity on all sides – including ours in the UK – is critical. I worry that the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing pact between the UK, US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia is likely to end unless matters change. Starmer, who has been a clanking disaster of a Prime Minister, should stop goading the US by foolishly, and in my view fecklessly, giving every impression that the UK is becoming a useful idiot for Beijing. Whatever criticisms one might make of Trump’s recent foreign policy moves, on this occasion, he is more on the side of the angels than some might admit.
Recently, I flicked through James C Bennett’s The Anglosphere Challenge, written more than 20 years ago, a few days ago. Reading it in light of recent events show what’s changed in the world, and what hasn’t. Recommended.
The legal case is also absurd.
The distance between Diego Garcia and Sri Lanka (1700km) is considerably shorter than the distance to Mauritius (2200km). The only connection between Mauritius and the Chagos Islands is that
* When Britain governed both, for our own convenience we placed them both under the same colonial administrative unit; and
* When we forcibly removed the indigenous Chagossians from their islands, we removed them to Mauritius.
In other words, far from being part of decolonisation, Mauritius’ connection rests entirely on colonial claims. It is wholly spurious, generated by a Chinese “judge” to advance that nation’s interests.
What Hermer and Starmer are going is tantamount to treason. And while I doubt Starmer has been literally paid off personally, I think Hermer and Powell should be investigated to see if there is any Chinese connection tainting their advice. If there is, charges for treason would be fully justified.
MC, I agree 100%.
I think they’re acting as if they’re Chinese assets.
It also undermines any claims the U.K. makes that Trump is an asset of Putin or that the Russians have kompromat on him.
We need to get our own house in order. On that, Trump is absolutely right.
1. Chagos deal is bullshit, but the Americans, including Trump have previously expressed being satisfied with it, so the current flip flopping looks more like opportunism now they’ve been criticised over Greenland.
2. American designs and rationalisations for wanting to possess Greenland are pathetic.
3. Britain needs to become more autonomous away from the United States. Unfortunately economic weakness and deindustrialisation makes that hard but I think at a minimum we urgently but quietly need to move towards a fully independent nuclear weapons program, like pretty much every other nuclear power and away from one that ultimately the Americans effectively control.
If you’re going to transfer the Chagos Islands to anyone, it should be to The Maldives, not to Mauritius. Chagos is geographically the southern end of the Maldive archipeligo, and historically settled and fishing grounds of Maldivians.
The notion Greenland is being threatened by Russian or (even more absurdly) Chinese takeover, and that can only be forestalled by making Greenland sovereign US territory, is so preposterous it has become a litmus test for a person’s ability to think coherently (or at least speak truthfully).
Just look at a map and ponder each nation’s power projection capabilities… then tell me how Russia, let alone China, could sustain sea lines of communication with Greenland. Even just European NATOs naval capabilities would make that impossible, let alone the USN.
Martin, once more I must agree with much of what you say. It is blatantly dishonest for any UK government to prate about our having an independent nuclear deterrent if there is even the slightest chance of Washington DC having an over-ride. (This is the “kill switch” problem that comes up also with buying certain tech from China.) Having such a programme is going to be costly, but it is imperative. We used to have one. France has been astute on this – De Gaulle was a shrewd old fox. We could use a bit more of folk like him today.
Perry, I am sure much of what you say is true. I am to some extent trying to give the Trump position the benefit of the doubt on the issue. I think that the pros and cons of leashold vs outright ownership is something for policy experts to think about, because there are inconsistencies.
In the main, I think Trump wants Greenland to add to his place in American history. I see very rough parallels between Trump and people such as Andrew Jackson, or to some degree, Teddy R.
Regarding Chagos: the threat isn’t merely that China establish listening posts within range of Diego Garcia, but that they could base drone operations within range. I hope everyone reading this thread watched the Russian strategic bomber force suffer irreplaceable casualties from Ukranian drones which caught them unprotected on their bases; that’s what a Chinese presence in the Chagos islands opens up as a possibility to happen to Diego Garcia.
And while Perry is completely correct that a Chinese takeover of Greenland is nonsense (and a Russian one even more so, despite the less unfavourable geography), I would contend that there are significant security concerns related to Greenland. Not ones which ought to lead to Trump falling out with the rest of NATO over them, of course–the whole situation we’re now in is absurd.
But I have read a report that Greenland apparently approached China to inquire about the possibility that China could build airfields there; seemingly the sort of infrastructure-for-access deal that has happened across much of Africa. If (a very big if) this is true, Chinese-built airstrips in Greenland would represent quite a security conundrum for the US, and ought to disturb the rest of NATO as well.
Anon, there is also Iceland. I went there with my wife in early October to watch the Northern Lights, take in the scenery, etc. (We had a fab time.) Iceland does not have its own military, although its coastguard vessels look rather like navy frigates. Here’s a thing: it has had increasingly strong China ties. Lots of Chinese nationals are there, and I noted a lot of tourists and Chinese folk in business attire.
Iceland used to be part of the Kingdom of Norway, and got independence a century ago. Given where it is in the N. Atlantic, its importance is obvious for navies projecting power, etc.
I went to the place in the capital where Reagan met Gorbachev in 1986. Iceland is a founder member of NATO. US Air Force jet squadrons rotate out of Keflavík base three to four times per year. It’s importance cannot be overstated.
Greenland is an enormous island in the American continent. For the minuscule Denmark, with no defensive capabilities, to hold colonial title to it is quite ridiculous. Denmark is quite happy to get a free ride and enjoy US defensive protection, while wielding all nominal colonial authority over this vast island. So, Trump’s demand is not devoid of logic.
Whether it is worth quarrelling with the US close allies in Europe over this issue is another question.
Also reminding Europe that it is free-riding on US defense umbrella is considered unpolite.
What I mean that the instinctive jumping with ridiculous slogans “Greenland is not for sale” – is not a rational or logical position. It’s an emotional slogan.
If I owned Greenland I would jump and put up a sign “for sale”, I, personally have no use for it.
That is – if Denmark can get some money for it – I advise them to take it. Instead of continuing to bleed money and subsidize Greenland out of pocket, for no good reason.
As to Chagos – why not try to sell it to Trump?
Seems that after a deep mind storming session, the UK came up with the most absurd solution.
On a per capita basis, Denmark suffered higher fatality rate in the Afghanistan war than the US did. And really Denmark served no major national interest in having soldiers there outside keeping America sweet. Denmark has protected itself better from terrorism by having more sensible immigration policies than many other countries, America included, than by anything the American led disaster in Afghanistan. But carry on believing they are free riders.
I’ve lost track how many American led wars Britain has allowed itself to get involved in despite them serving no real purpose for Britain.
@Jacob
Can I partially agree?
Certainly re Chagos.
With regard to Greenland, the problem is partly Trump himself. He enrages. I am generally pro his actions, not that anyone need care about that, but he’s not covered himself with glory here.
Try reading Cdr Salamander on this issue for a patriotic (US), pro-Trump but anti-his-behaviour-in-this-instance approach.
Moreover, when it comes to purchase, Greenland is not just a commodity. It has inhabitants. Inhabitants whom Denmark has, historically, treated quite badly (although nothing like Trail of Tears nor Tuskegee experiment badly) and has more recently attempted to treat well. They are on a “path to independence” and whilst geopolitical considerations might urge ignoring that, I don’t think Denmark can or should.
You say Greenland’s in the American continent. Yes-ish. So’s Canada. It’s about 1200 miles from Greenland to the USA. It’s also about 1200 miles from Greenland to Denmark.
It should be reminded at every opportunity. However, I would also argue that a weak-ish (and thus subordinate) Europe and UK has been an unspoken US policy objective since 1945. That this may have changed is good, but I think that it’s demonstrative of this attitude that Trump is insisting on acquiring Greenland rather than, say, a non-competitive lease.
Trump can certainly be a rude SOB when it suits his purposes, can’t he?
I wonder how much we’ll end up paying the residents of Greenland after Trump’s purchase campaign finishes up.
President Trump is correct about the Chagos Islands surrender – it is a sickening betrayal, pushed, for years, by the Prime Minister’s crony Lord Hermer.
The Mega Embassy in London from the Communist Party tyranny that controls China – is another disgrace.
And note what day it was agreed – the anniversary of the treaty ceding Hong Kong to Britain back in 1841, the Dictatorship that controls China has a sense of irony.
As for Greenland – President Trump has, indeed, always been open to making a deal, which makes the hysterical response in Europe bizarre.
Unless there is an agenda behind the hysteria – make President Trump some sort of bogey man, in order to DISTRACT ATTENTION from the real problems of European nations.
If people are endlessly talking about “Trump” they will be distracted from noticing that their nations are being destroyed (systematically destroyed) by the “liberal” (which is not really liberal) establishment.
As for the “Anglosphere”…
Apart from the United States which of these countries supports the old definition of a free person – the right to keep and bear arms?
Too hard a test?
What about Freedom of Speech – against the Frankfurt School of Marxism “Hate Speech” concept?
Herbert Marcuse declared that tolerating “reactionary” speech was “Repressive Tolerance” – and now most Western governments AGREE with this position (due to university indoctrination).
So how are these “AngloSphere” countries, with the possible exception of the government of New Zealand, allies of the United States?
A friend does NOT want to put you in prison – and Keir Starmer and co would send conservative Americans to prison.
These governments are NOT allies – if they could, they would do terrible harm to those Americans who are conservatives.
And then these is demography.
As all these nations (including the United States – it was the last to be undermined) now have fertility rates below replacement level (thanks to feminism and-so-on, the “Social Revolution” that hit from the 1960s onwards) and have expanding non Western populations (and the idea that they will assimilate has been exposed as false – assimilation is NOT sport or pop music), how long are these Western nations going to exist?
How long will Western nations, Anglosphere or not, survive – before being overwhelmed, not by some foreign military, but by their own cultural, and demographic, decay?
Still President Trump is optimistic – he clearly believes that the United States can be saved.
Let us hope he is correct, and I am wrong.
Of course, due to the Welfare States (the taking over of many of the basic functions of civil society – by the state) GOVERNMENT SPENDING is out of control in all these nations.
With out of control government spending they will all collapse economically, probably before they are overwhelmed demographically by the population they have imported (and the natural increase of these populations).
One can point at some areas, such as South Dakota in the United States, which have close to replacement level demography and relatively (relatively) controlled government spending.
But not overall nations.
Herbert Spencer warned what would happen if the state took over the basic function of Civil Society (“Man Versus The State” 1883) and John Morley (Gladstone’s friend and biographer) lived to see the very early stages of this process.
And, as the cats continue chasing Trump’s laser pointer:
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115934734335579278
Sounds like a deal has been made.
bobby b – you have more common sense than the entire British media, and many supposed Classical Liberal thinkers – such Daniel Hannan who was having a nervous breakdown on social media, and even an American free market economist I know – who was going on about President Trump being the “Manchurian Candidate” controlled by Russia and China.
Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is just weird.
My guess: expanded leaseholds for US military, some mineral JV’s, and strong exclusionary rules for Chinese and Russian presence.
On to Canada! (China has moved in there, and that’s likely a red line for Trump.)
Bobby: erm…..didn’t South Park examine this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2BbFzUuORc
Paul: well TDS is a bit rude: Hannan is a pretty astute chap, who’s been on the right side of issues such as the EU etc. he’s a small government conservative.
And Trump’s letter to the Norwegians the other day is beyond bizarre. The Nobel Prize fixation is absurd. He world gave won my respect by not bothering with these baubles. This is the behaviour that makes folk think he’s a nutter.
https://news.sky.com/story/trumps-extraordinary-letter-to-norway-about-greenland-in-full-and-fact-checked-13496272
Don’t necessarily want to stray too far off topic but I think it’s notable while all the Greenland stuff is going on, it appears the former Al Qaeda members running Syria that now get invited to the White House have routed the heavily Kurdish SDF in Northern Syria. The SDF had been close allies of the US during the fighting against ISIS. The American government has, it appears, abandoned the SDF. A cautionary tale about relying on American support.
I keep on failing to understand why otherwise sensible folk seem to think that Starmer does all this stuff which is manifestly against British interests … by mistake.
I think giving Chagos full “independence” and the USA very rapidly coming in with an excellent offer would have been an excellent solution.
JP: Always loved that one. “Operation Human Shield my ass!”
(Canada is the next laser-pointer to watch. Carney is not reacting well to Trump, and so the hysteria is going to be epic!)
The Yanks had thousands of troops on Greenland during the Cold War and managed this without owning the territory or alienating their allies. Trump’s letter to the president of Norway reads like the work of an eight year old.
Cosying up to the Islamist nutters now in charge of Syria is a throwback to Obama-style foreign policy.
Strictly speaking, both statements are correct.
However, Iceland did not get independence from the Kingdom of Norway, but from the Kingdom of Denmark. The Kingdom of Norway had been in personal union with the Kingdom of Denmark until the end of the Napoleonic wars, after which Norway got in personal union with Sweden (against the wish of the Norwegians); but Iceland and Greenland were at the same time transferred from the Kingdom of Norway to the Kingdom of Denmark, and therefore continued to be ruled from Copenhagen.
I have read somewhere that the PM of Greenland actually made a deal with China about an airport, only for the Danish PM to veto it.
Keeping in mind that there will be a referendum for full independence of Greenland, that suggests that Trump might have a hidden agenda: his ultimate goal might be to scare the Greenlanders into voting against independence, and therefore to remain under Danish supervision.
But i don’t entirely buy my own hypothesis.
Johnathan Pearce – read what Daniel Hannan wrote on X – Perry republished it.
It was hysterical nonsense – about how DJT is a threat to the Western way of life, people should never have voted for him, how DJT had “gone mad” (with a fake quote to “prove” it) and on and on.
And a free market (YES a real free market person Ebling, Austrian School) wrote, on Facebook, how DJT was the “Manchurian Candidate” serving Russia and China.
Either these people are bonkers (stark raving mad) – or, more likely, they have made the fundamental mistake of listening to the main-stream-media.
The msm do not twist about DJT, they twist everything. It is what they do.
Tolkien’s character “Hurin” could not be made to serve Morgoth – not even the most severe torture could make him submit.
So what Morgoth did (in the story) is to control everything that Hurin heard and watched – for YEARS.
Then he released Hurin – pretending to feel pity for him.
And Hurin went off and served Morgoth – without-knowing-he-was-serving-Morgoth, because everything he had heard and seen, for YEARS was designed to give him a false impression of what was going on in the world – and to lead him to act in a way that would benefit Morgoth (without Hurin knowing he was benefiting Morgoth).
That is what happens to people who trust “mainstream” sources.
Eventually Hurin found out he had been deceived – and killed himself.
Nick M. – an excellent idea about the Chagos Islands.
Snorri – and what does the Prime Minister of Denmark do if the ruler of China decides to ignore this “veto”? Does he send a stern letter of protest?
bobby b – as you know, Canada “has no core culture”, according to former Prime Minister Trudeau, which means it is not a nation at all.
A lot of people in Alberta would sort/of agree with former Prime Minister Trudeau – but their conclusion is (naturally enough) that Canada is a dying concept, and that they would be better-off-out.
It has been in decline for a long time – for example the Red Ensign flag went in 1965.
Paul:
More likely, the Danish PM asks for military support from NATO allies — meaning, from the US.
I mostly agree myself. I spent years at the Ivy League and in Alberta, and it took me 2 or 3 decades afterwards to realize that i liked Alberta because it is more American (in the Reagan-Trump sense of the word) than Canadian (in the Trudeau sense).
But i would be lying to myself if i said that i disliked the Ivy League because it is more Trudeau-like than Reagan-Trump-like. I disliked it mostly because of culture shock; and because my diet there was at an all-time low.
Snorri, Reagan – Trump? Are you serious? Reagan would have been disgusted with trump.
Snorri – so he would ask for aid from the United States, which Europeans have been spitting on, to defend (risk thermonuclear war over) an area that the United States does not own, good-luck-with-that.
Alberta – interesting comment Snorri, yes a lot to think about.
The question is should Alberta join up with the United States. or become independent?
Canada has been destroyed by the “liberal” elite over many years – and as for the British Crown…..
His Majesty King Charles the Third at least appeared to make his opinion of the British people (and by extension those trying to defend Canada, Australia and New Zealand against the blessings of “enrichment”, of “Diversity”) very clear in his Christmas broadcast of 2024 – and in many other speeches and events. And it should be pointed out, for example, that the claim that all major religions teach the same basic moral principles is wrong – just factually mistaken.
Loyalty is a two way street – feudal oaths were two way.
You defended your monarch, to the death, but on the understanding that the monarch was loyal to the nation – to the people, that the monarch was not loyal to some rival people.
The present negative opinion may be totally unjustified – privately His Majesty may be horrified by the things he is forced to say (none of us really know – we can only guess), but people, rightly or wrongly, tend to judge matters by what they hear and see.
Snorri, You read somewhere. Well we’ll make book on that. You don’t entirely buy”youy own hypothesis because you know how absurd it is that the babbler in the WH can think that far ahead.
Paul: I was just answering your question as though it was meant literally (even though i know it was rhetorical).
IOW I was saying what the Danish PM *would* do; not what the US President *should* do.
I might add that, until Chinese troops get on the ground in Greenland, the Danish Army should be sufficient to suppress any insurrection.
No: I don’t buy it because i know that i can’t think as far ahead as Trump does.
Snorri Godhi – I apologize for misunderstanding your meaning.
Please provide examples of Denmark ‘spitting on’ the United States.
I’ve already mentioned the Danes troops who were killed in Afghanistan. The Danes also had forces in Iraq between 2003-7.
TACO. Defeated and humiliated by the stock market, Trump always chickens out.
TAW.
Stupid Trump. Now it appears that he has messed up the Chagos deal that everyone here loved. Darn him. Chickening out of giving a great gift to China once again.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/01/23/starmer-pulls-chagos-deal-following-trump-backlash/